Two Unpopular Things That Are Good for You (2008)

Originally published as a Facebook Note October 17, 2008.

Source: Wikipedia

In Wednesday night's debate--for my money one of the more edifying political exchanges I can remember--John McCain twice referred to Barack Obama as "eloquent." He did not mean it as a compliment. The clear implication was that Obama's eloquence masks... well, something, we're not sure what, but likely some devious plot that will make America rue the day they elected him, if they do.

I'm not taking sides in the election, but I want to place myself on the side of eloquence. Serious times like these require an ability to grasp complex issues, and explain difficult truths to the masses. That requires a facility with the English language that too many public figures lack. Moreover, the English language, in the right hands, can be a beautiful thing that can lift the spirit and give us strength for the struggle. Of course, eloquence can be used to mislead, but so can plain speech. (Think of President Bush's arguments in favor of invading Iraq.) It behooves us to be informed enough that we can recognize the signs of responsible argument. It's certainly no excuse for demanding our public figures prove they're real by avoiding big words and limiting their expressions to colloquialisms like "You betcha."

Speaking of responsible argument, could somebody please explain to me how we as a country are going to pay for the financial bailout, the wind-down of the Iraq war (however long that takes), our obligations to seniors under Social Security and Medicare, repairing our infrastructure, and doing the heavy lifting on health care and the environment unless somebody pays taxes? It is true that fiscal policy theory would suggest cutting, rather than raising, taxes in an economic downturn. However, these are not ordinary times in that respect. Eight years of disastrous fiscal policy have left the United States frighteningly exposed financially. We simply must raise some revenue. It behooves us to do it judiciously, so as not to hamper job growth and prolong the downturn. But in order to prevent an even bigger fiscal hole, we must raise taxes on people who's financial position indicates an ability to pay. In the long term, the 2001-03 tax cuts are simply not sustainable and must be allowed to expire.

John McCain, who used to have a pretty clear head when it came to economic matters, has all year been advocating cutting taxes even further. (Supply-side economics, the partially hydrogenated vegetable oil of economic theories, is widely discredited but refuses to die.) Whatever its surface appeal, it simply cannot be the basis of an economic policy, because cutting taxes only raises revenue when marginal rates are too high. Otherwise, cutting taxes reduces revenue, which is not a good idea when the national debt is over $10 billion and the dollar is plunging against other major currencies. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on the top 5 percent of incomes but not on anybody else. This policy is appropriately cautious for the current economic turmoil... and for a presidential campaign when he's been repeatedly accused of wanting to raise taxes on everything that moves. However, I fear his repeated denials, like George H.W. Bush's foolish 1988 pledge never to raise taxes, will deny him the flexibility to make appropriate tax policy over the course of his term if he's elected.